You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPLACE OR DISMISS HIS STANDBY COUNSEL PROPERLY...
,

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPLACE OR DISMISS HIS STANDBY COUNSEL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s request to replace or dismiss defendant’s standby attorney:

After permitting defendant to represent himself at trial, the court providently exercised its discretion in declining to replace or dismiss defendant’s standby counsel. Initially, to the extent defendant sought to proceed with no standby counsel at all, that request was properly denied. That option would have risked a mistrial in the event termination of defendant’s pro se status became necessary, and this was of particular concern because defendant had a history of disrupting the proceedings … . Defendant was under no obligation to solicit or accept any advice from his standby counsel.

Furthermore, there was no good cause for replacement of defendant’s standby counsel, who was defendant’s third assigned attorney, with yet another attorney … . While the record sometimes shows contentious exchanges between defendant and this attorney, the record also shows that he consulted with him, as a legal advisor, on other occasions. There was no irreconcilable conflict amounting to good cause for substitution… , nor does any disagreement over trial strategy … . The attorney’s negative comments about defendant, quoted in a newspaper article, should have been avoided, but they were made well before trial, and did not prejudice defendant or amount to an irreconcilable conflict. People v Findley, 2018 NY Slip Op 02545, First Dept 4-12-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (ATTORNEYS, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPLACE OR DISMISS HIS STANDBY COUNSEL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, STANDBY COUNSEL, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPLACE OR DISMISS HIS STANDBY COUNSEL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/STANDBY COUNSEL (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPLACE OR DISMISS HIS STANDBY COUNSEL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/PRO SE (CRIMINAL LAW, STANDBY COUNSEL, DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPLACE OR DISMISS HIS STANDBY COUNSEL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
A REJECTED PURCHASE OFFER WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL TO PROVE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE MARITAL RESIDENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN SEVERAL PROSPECTIVE JURORS INDICATED THEY WOULD BE INCLINED TO BELIEVE THE VICTIM IN THIS SEXUAL ABUSE CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE; QUESTION OF FACT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE RECORDS OF TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS ARE SEALED PURSUANT TO CPL 160.55, THE RECORDS OF A VIOLATION OF NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 19-190(b), AN UNCLASSIFIED MISDEMEANOR WHICH CRIMINALIZES STRIKING A PEDESTRIAN WHO HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY, ARE NOT SEALED; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THOSE RECORDS IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT EXPERT OPINION TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION HE INHALED SUFFICIENT AMOUNTS OF ASBESTOS TO HAVE CAUSED HIS CANCER; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD PASSED OUT AT A CONCERT, REFUSED ASSISTANCE IN WALKING TO THE BACK OF THE THEATER SO THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN COULD CHECK HIS BLOOD PRESSURE AND PULSE; WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO WALK TO THE BACK OF THE THEATER HE PASSED OUT AGAIN AND FELL, HIS FACE HITTING THE FLOOR; THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO ASSIST PLAINTIFF AFTER HE REFUSED THEIR HELP AND THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE NOTIFIED THAT THE ELEVATOR DOORS CLOSED TOO FAST AND WHETHER REPAIRS TO THE DOOR COULD BE RELATED TO THE CLOSING VELOCITY; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HIS THUMB WAS CAUGHT IN THE CLOSING DOOR; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE DUCT ON THE FLOOR WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE DEMOLITION WORK, THEREFORE LABOR LAW 241 (6) DID NOT APPLY; THE DEFENDANT DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THEREFORE LABOR LAW 200 DID NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

A COURT HAS THE DISCRETION TO GRANT A MOTION TO RENEW THAT IS NOT BASED ON NEWLY... REQUEST FOR A FRYE HEARING CONCERNING A COMPUTER PROGRAM (TRUEALLELE) THAT PURPORTS...